A Trip Down Memory Lane with the Detroit Jewish News

The Detroit Jewish News just released an online digital archive, containing every article of every page of the publication. I, of course, searched for myself. It's a terrific walk down memory lane. Sometimes, I can't really believe I wrote what I did. I'm proud I wrote it, but somewhat surprised at myself. (And, looking back, good for the JN for publishing it.) Take, for example, this Torah piece.

That prompted an outraged reader to write this letter:

Which, in turn, prompted this vigorous defense by YIOP member Steve Katz. Way to go Steve!

Ah, the memories...

The OU Wants You to Move to Houston. They're Wrong.

My first reaction, upon reading about the OU's new "Move To Houston" initiative - CHAT (Come to Houston And Thrive - but isn't that really CTHAT?) was, "What?! Really? The OU wants people to move out of New York...and not to Israel?" Really? We need more Jews in America?
Truthfully, we don't. If you're looking to solve your day school tuition problems, moving to Houston isn't going to help you. If you're willing to leave your family, job and community, and move thousands of miles to somewhere new and start over, do you really want to go to...Houston? Isn't that where the Texans play? And the Astros? Do you really want your kids growing up to be Astros fans?

Any reader of this blog knows that I believe strongly that every Jew belongs in Israel (where every Orthodox Jew believes we'll all end up anyway.) But I understand that not every person is willing and able to make the jump to move to Israel. They just find it daunting, which I get. Somehow, moving to Houston is less intimidating. At least it's the same language, culture (actually, it's not the same culture, but it's not as different as Israel), the same country. And people in America do need to spread out. There are simply too many shuls in Teaneck.
But I still think the OU is wrong. Sure, Houston may be fine. My good friend Rabbi Barry Gelman serves as the rabbi of a big shul there. But you shouldn't move to Houston. No, you should move to Michigan.
Why is Michigan better? Let me count the ways.

Orthodox community: If Houston has 500 frum families, Michigan has many, many more - well into the thousands. No contest. Just get a copy of the WOL (that's Women's Orthodox League - kind of like the Ladies Auxiliary of the Mikveh) directory, and you'll see what I mean. Advantage Michigan.

Schools: Sorry, but while the Houston list looks nice, Michigan offers a wide range of schooling options for families from Modern Orthodox to very, very Chareidi, serving many hundreds of children. And the tuition in Michigan really is more reasonable as well. From Akiva (where we sent our kids) to Darchei Torah to Yeshiva Beth Yehudah to the Bais Yaakov, Detroit offers a wide range of educational options for the Orthodox family. Truth be told, one lacking from my point of view was a more moderate boys-only high school. For years, the community lacked such a school due to ridiculous politics that I never fully understood. I hear that there's now an option in West Bloomfield, which I hope is true. It's a really important piece of the communal puzzle. Still, from the school perspective, Michigan wins!

Shuls: Michigan again. You can choose from three (really more) neighborhoods, with numerous shuls and about a zillion shtiebels. (But that's a different post entirely).

Sports: That's a tough one. Texans seem to like their sports. And while the Pistons used to be great when I was there, no longer. But the Lions seem to be doing well, which is something no one living in Michigan ever expected to see in their lifetime. And, being from Washington D.C., I could never really watch Redskins games anyway. And they've been awful for twenty years. Tie.

Restaurants: That one seems like a toss-up. I don't really know kosher Houston, but Michigan never had enough restaurants. Sure, Jerusalem Pizza is a must. (don't leave without trying my personal favorite, the Kishka Pizza. Really. Amazing.) But we could never support enough restaurants to satisfy the needs of the community. People used to blame the Vaad. But I sat on the Vaad, and while the Vaad was never perfect, it just boiled down to a lack of demand for higher end kosher food. I think that people in Michigan are just simpler; they eat out less, and maybe that's because they have less money to spend on eating out. Which brings me to the best part of Michigan:

The people: Again, I have no idea what people are like in Houston. Let's assume, for the purpose of this uninformed blog post, that they fulfill every stereotype of Texas that we've seen in the movies. They massacre people with chainsaws, talk funny, and you can't really understand them. Ah, I jest.
Not so in Michigan.
People from the Midwest are just laid back. They don't put on airs. There's no phoniness about them. They're kind, caring and unpretentious. If you're looking for a place where you come to shul to see and be seen; to dress up and hobnob at the fancy catered kiddush each Shabbat - then don't go to Michigan. But if you're looking for a city where the people committed to community; where they really do look out for each-other, and where you can not only grow yourself, but really make a difference, then Michigan might be for you.

One thing I would say: the Houston initiative is great. The Orthodox community in Michigan could learn something from CHAT: I love their organization; the website they set up organizes all the important information in one place. If the Michigan Orthodox community is serious about attracting new families, this is the model that it needs to follow.

So, to sum it up, if you're looking to move out of New York, Chicago or L.A., move to Israel! But if that's not for you, in addition to looking at Houston, as the OU wants you to do, look at Michigan. It's a great place to raise a family, and when you decide to move to Israel, the community will offer you warmth, support and friendship, long after you've left.

Oh, I forgot one more thing. If you do decide that Michigan is for you, give me a call. I've got a house for sale. Really.

Old Spice Times Three: Purim Torah Edition

We start with the original Old Spice guy. If you haven't seen it, here you go.




We then proceed to the Grover version, an instant classic.



Finally, the Orthodox version, featuring former Detroiter Dani Ungar. Go Dani!

Summer Grillin' Season Begins. Too Bad You Can't Find a Decent Steak.

Upon my arrival in Detroit, one of my first stops was a meeting with a man named Moshe Flatt. If you're from Detroit, you know Reb Moshe. Among his many other accomplishments, Reb Moshe founded and created the Cornbelt Beef Processing plant, a vehicle from which he supported pretty much every Orthodox Jewish institution in Detroit, including the Young Israel of Oak Park.
When I got there, Reb Moshe still went to work every day, although he was well into his eighties. He invited me to join him once, and I went to watch him buy cows. To kill. For food.
We drove out for a couple hours to somewhere in the middle of Michigan where they were holding a cattle auction. We sat on concrete bleachers, as the farmers brought out one cow after the next, while the announcer threw numbers around. I had no idea what anything meant; just that every now and then Reb Moshe would twitch his hand just a little bit, which I think meant that he bought the cow. Truth is, they all looked like cows to me - I couldn't tell any difference between them, which made sense. I had no training whatsoever. But Reb Moshe knew exactly what he was looking for. And he only bought what he wanted.
(Reb Moshe was a "fleish" man through and through. If you're curious, you can email me and ask me what he had one of canes made out of.)
Cornbelt was one of the last independent kosher slaughter houses in the United States. I don't even know if any exist anymore. Everything has become so centralized and commercialized, that it's difficult to run a small meat-packing plant, much less a kosher one. But back then, the Flatts' business killed several hundred head of meat a week, many for kosher (at least as many as the shochet deemed kosher).
I mention this short story because Reb Moshe (and his son Sam) were in the habit of sharing with the rabbi meat for the holidays, both on Rosh Hashanah and Pesach. And, by sharing his meat with me, he spoiled me on any other meat or steak, probably for the rest of my life. Never before tasting his meat, nor since, have I ever eaten meat that tasted as good.
I thought of Reb Moshe and my trip to the cattle auction when I saw an article in the Wall Street Journal about the quality - or lack thereof - of meat in America. A short excerpt:

Today, four big companies—Cargill, JBS Swift, National and Tyson Foods—dominate beef packing. Feedlots and slaughterhouses have gotten enormous. At every level, the chain of beef production has been tweaked to get cattle fat cheaply. But mass production is not without its drawbacks. Cheap beef doesn't taste good. What we have gained in yield and efficiency, we've lost in flavor.

Reading the article, I instantly understood the article precisely. If you've never tasted what a real steak should taste like, then you'd never know the difference. If all you can remember eating is Rubashkin or Empire, bought and killed in lots of hundreds, if not thousands, how would you know the quality of the cow from which the meat came? You would not - and you'd never know that the steak lacked any discernible natural sweetness and taste. You wouldn't know, because you'd have nothing to compare it to.
When other people talk about a great steak that they had, or look forward to an "all you can eat meat restaurant" or a great steakhouse, I find myself unmoved. Cornbelt meat was the best meat I have ever tasted in my life, without exaggeration. And I'm fairly certain that I might never taste as good a steak again.
The factory burned down about five years back - maybe more, and while Sam still produces kosher lamb, he doesn't do kosher beef anymore. It's too expensive, too risky, and too difficult.
But it's not his loss as much as our loss. Except that by this point, no one really can tell the difference anymore.

A Crazy Phone Message on My Machine

I got this message on my answering machine over chol hamoed. I have no idea what to make of it. Do you?

The New Head of Detroit's Vaad -- An Email Response

I received the following disturbing, distressing email from a community member in Detroit - first directly, and then later indirectly, and because it's now swirling through the Internet, I feel strongly compelled to respond. Yet, in the interests of avoiding lashon hara, I have decided to remove the names of the senders and other related parties. I have taken the liberty to highlight areas that I will respond to. If you want to read the letter, scroll down to the bottom of this post, as I will respond to the tone first and then the content of the letter before posting the actual email for perusal at the bottom.

Dear Anonymous,

I received your email regarding the appointment of Rabbi Doniel Neustadt as the new Yoshev Rosh of the Council of Othodox Rabbis in Detroit with sadness and dismay.

The Tone
More than any of the substantive concerns in your letter, I find the tone and language of your correspondence abhorrent, disrespectful and tasteless, and your hysterics spoke to me more about the writers than the subject. Let me site some examples:

• ordinary Orthodox citizenry in the Detroit area like you and me will be trampled on.
• The situation is dire
• Perhaps someone will find a way to avoid the impending calamity.
  
• All is not lost. Before these gloomy predictions have a chance to take place...
• Please take these warnings seriously

Trampled on? Dire Situation? Impending calamity? Gloomy predictions and serious warnings? Let's understand: we're talking about the hiring of a rabbi who you feel is too right-wing to properly represent our community. Why then use language that seems more fitting for genocide or impending nuclear attack than for what you fear might prevent you from eating kosher Chinese food? Quite simply, it's hard to take anything seriously when a person considers "chumrah" a calamitous disaster to be avoided at all costs. Please calm down -- and then perhaps we can discuss the issues calmly.

Even more disturbing is the email that you forwarded to me written by your correspondent. I don't know how you speak in private, but it's generally a good rule not to write everything you think, nor to email everything you write, and certainly not to forward tasteless emails that you receive. How dare anyone write that a rabbi in town -- one who has invested literally hundreds of hours of his time -- all in your best interest -- in the local Va'ad, that:

• he has no stones and tries to walk the middle road always

Is there really any place for that type of vulgar language about anyone, much less a rabbi in town -- much less your rabbi? How does our community benefit from vulgarity about its religious leaders? If you were so concerned about our community's well-being, don't you think you should make the effort to watch your language and speak with a little more care? Last I checked, halachah cares just as much - probably more - about what comes out of your mouth than what goes into it. But the message continues:

• the rag that Neustadt wrote was more than chumra laiden. It was a source of derision and became a Chilul H'Shem rather than a furtherance of Yiddiskeit

Let me understand: because you don't like his halachic positions, you consider his weekly halachah sheet that I read regularly and quite enjoy to be a "rag." Apparently, it's so divisive that you cannot even abide distributing it in your shul. I find it comical that you complain of Rabbi Neustadt's polarizing and intolerant temperament while you can't even allow a sheet of Jewish law from a respected posek to be distributed in your shul. Who's the polarizing figure -- Rabbi Neustadt -- or the members of the so-called "Modern Orthodox" community so fearful of chumrah that they cannot even read about it? Also, at the top of every sheet of Rabbi Neustadt's "Weekly Halachah Discussion" are the words: "For final rulings, consult your Rav." That seems reasonable advice -but only if you can permit yourself to read his sheet.

I will ignore the political swipe that the email made, and not dignify it with a response. Yet, the end of the email seems beyond belief:

• This is a man who should be given a Teffilas HaDerech the minute he steps into the city

Really? This is a less-than-veiled threat that you will do your best to drive Rabbi Neustadt our of town from the minute he arrives. I cannot imagine a more "polarizing" and "derisive" comment. Even assuming that your fears have basis, should you not follow your own religious guidelines and give the man the opportunity to prove you wrong? Are you so sure of your conviction that you're unwilling to consider that you might be wrong? I could understand a reticence to hire Rabbi Neustadt or even prevent his arrival - but this makes clear that even should he arrive, you will make every effort to impede his efforts in this city and drive him from Detroit. How is that in the interests of Orthodoxy in our city?


The Content
First and foremost, I take issue with your primary contention that Rabbi Neustadt is a "polarizing" and "divisive" figure.

• I am told that Rabbi Neustadt’s newsletters were unwelcome in Beechwood and that Rabbi Neustadt is a polarizing figure

Who told you this? You simply repeat lashon hara with the intent of harming a man's reputation and livelihood.

• We were willing to be dazzled by the brilliance of Rabbi Neustadt’s reply but he stonewalled us

Moreover, the incident you cite doesn't leave me convinced either. While at face value it seems that Rabbi Neustadt should have responded to your email, I know neither the tone nor the content of that message. In addition, he never paskins for anyone, and always encourages people to discuss the contents of the parshah sheet with their rav. Did you do this? Were you expecting him to issue a retraction? Your sarcastic tone that you were waiting him "to dazzle me with his brilliance" gives me an indication as to why Rabbi Neustadt chose not to respond to your message.
I agree with you that Rabbi Neustadt's halachic discussion sheets tend to lean towards stringency. But in my experience, any generally written halachic work must, by definition, lean towards stringency because it cannot account for all circumstances that would trigger a leniency. Moreover, I find that whenever people find a leniency they tend to apply it even in inappropriate situations, so I personally am also careful about which leniencies to publish in a publicly distributed communication. So, while he may be machmir in unspecified situations, that by no means indicates that Rabbi Neustadt would apply those very same chumros in private, personal situations. That's simply how the halachic process works.

Let's now turn to the issue of divisiveness and polarity: it seems to me that while individual rabbis may have concerns, there is great unity among us about the need for a new head of the Va'ad, and excitement about the appointment of Rabbi Neustadt. He is a recognized halachic expert having published respected works, he has experience in the areas of kashrus and administration, and has even contributed constructively to the Beis Din in Cleveland. When was the last time the rabbis of the Va'ad could positively come together about a constructive issue? When we finally stand behind a candidate to lead us, it seems to me like he is a unifying figure - at least to this point, and not a divisive one. You see, unlike you I don't need a rabbi to look like me, dress like me, or even pasken like me -- in order for me to give him my support. I support him because he needs that support to bring order to the Va'ad and unity to our community, two areas sorely lacking to this point.

And what of the issue of chumrah? Let's say that Rabbi Neustadt is indeed - as you suggest -- a machmir. (When did that word become a pejorative insult? Some might consider it a compliment.) In which areas of kashrus would you like him to be lenient? Would you like him to check only half the lettuce at a given affair for bugs? Would you prefer that we import improperly salted meat from questionable plants? Or would you rather that the hashgachah only oversee restaurants part of the time, and not constantly? What area of kashrus should we seek leniency in? Personally, I'm rather happy with a Rosh Va'ad who's meticulous about halachic issues.

You seem to be confusing chumrah in halachah with hashkafah and political issues. The posek of the Va'ad will determine kashrus policy: what events require what level of supervision; what agencies we accept and reject; what type of kashering procedures are acceptable in different situations; how should produce be checked for infestation? These issues come up regularly and require a posek to make a final decision that will be applied city-wide, and not by committee as has been the case since my arrival in Detroit. Moreover, they need a person who will be responsible to ensure that the policies are carried out uniformly throughout the city, and not in different establishments based on grandfather clauses, proprietors, and who the mashgiach happens to be. That's Rabbi Neustadt's primary role, and I have every confidence in his ability to make kashrus in our city a source of pride and unity.

But then there are other, more political issues. Ah, the hangout issue. I must say that in my seven years in this city, I have never once heard the argument -- either inside the Va'ad or by a member of the Va'ad, that we should not allow an establishment to open because it will "be a hangout." Perhaps the argument was made in the past, but can we please move on? Seven years is a long time, and we've seen the opening of a pizza store, a donut shop, a sandwich store in the JCC, and a meat take-out store -- all of which have mixed seating! -- without complaint. Now, it could very well be that the rabbis from Yeshiva Gedolah have instructed their students not to hang out in those establishments, but they have been nothing but encouraging about promoting the creation of more kosher establishments in town. In addition, while the Va'ad is hiring a Yoshev Rosh, we're not disbanding. The rabbinic members of the Va'ad will have a full say in issues that it considers super-halachic and political in nature, and will work together with the Yoshev Rosh to address those issues.
Finally, please spare us from wild speculation about what people will or will not do in response to your worst fears. Your "gloomy predictions" only increase your tone of hysteria, and have no basis in fact. If you truly want unity in our community, you will reassess your position and, at the very least:
1. Apologize to Rabbis Neustadt and Morris for your reprehensible tone
2. Give Rabbi Neustadt a chance to settle in and prove himself
3. Give the Va'ad the support that it needs in our community to truly become a communal institution. Choosing to vilify Rabbi Neustadt or the other rabbanim in town who volunteer their time (with no renumeration - but plenty of aggravation), will not drive out anyone -- but instead further isolate yourself.

I conclude by wondering why you included my name on your list of recipients in the first place. Did you think that because I'm a Modern Orthodox rabbi I would speak out against a perceived injustice? Did you think that because I'm outspoken at times I would have the temerity to speak out? I hope that you were right.

I conclude with one of my favorite quotes from Ralph Waldo Emerson, "Who you are speaks so loudly, I cannot hear what your saying." It seems that in light of your email, Emerson was indeed correct.

I pray that the Ribbono shel Olam gives our community the wisdom, knowledge and strength to use this new addition to the Va'ad and our city as an opportunity to grow closer to Him, and each-other.

Rabbi Reuven Spolter

If you're interested, here is the text of the email:

Anonymous

I forwarded a copy of my letter to Rabbi Morris to less than a handful of people. Since that time I've spoken to rabbi Morris who has tried to allay my fears. I can't for one moment buy into the notion that Rabbi Neustadt is machmir in his newsletters but otherwise maykil. I told Rabbi Morris that I have every reason to feel that if Rabbi Neustadt occupies the office of Yoshev Rosh Vaad Harabonim of Detroit our ordinary Orthodox citizenry in the Detroit area like you and me will be trampled on.

Rabbi Morris told me, "there's nothing we can do about it because Rabbi Neustadt is hired". There has to be another way. The situation is dire. I no longer feel this discussion should be limited to just a few balebatim. Feel free to forward these ideas. Perhaps someone will find a way to avoid the impending calamity.

Anonymous

In a message dated 2/18/2008 10:53:58 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, Anonymous writes:

Well said. I couldn't agree with you more. This is as important an issue as there is for our shul. It should be brought to the membership for an open discussion. Unfortunately, there is little that our Rav can or will do about it. Let's face it: he has no stones and tries to walk the middle road always. The rag that Neustadt wrote was more than chumra laiden. It was a source of derision and became a Chilul H'Shem rather than a furtherance of Yiddiskeit. This is a Bakst - Torgow appointment and does not bode well for the city. This is a man who should be given a Teffilas HaDerech the minute he steps into the city.

anonymous

In a message dated 2/17/2008 10:16:28 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, anonymous writes:

To: Rabbi Morris

From: Anonymous

I was dismayed to read that Rabbi Doniel Neustadt has been invited to become the Yoshev Rosh Vaad Harabonim of Detroit. His weekly newsletter on halacha l’meisa formerly distributed in our shul was dubbed the “Chumra of the Week Rag” by some of our Southfield wags. His approach to yiddishkeit is something many in our shul find distasteful.

An example of his cavalier attitude towards criticism is the following:

I attempted to contact Rabbi Neustadt via email regarding his two part series on taking medicine on shabbat. The email was delivered but went unanswered. I had written a letter to point out several items in his newsletter that not only conflict with good medical practice but actually can cause serious harm. A dozen of our physicians and allied medical professionals in our shul signed the letter along with me. In addition there were another dozen who were in agreement with the letter but didn't want to get involved to the extent of signing a letter. We were willing to be dazzled by the brilliance of Rabbi Neustadt’s reply but he stonewalled us. This was not the only issue to which our group took exception.

Rabbi Neustadt is Rav of Young Israel of Cleveland Heights (at the Academy Bldg). I know it well. I was a member there when the distinguished and revered Rav was Rabbi Schubert Spero. I remain in contact with members of Young Israel in the Cleveland area, many of whom have moved to the newer Young Israel in the Beechwood suburb. I am told that Rabbi Neustadt’s newsletters were unwelcome in Beechwood and that Rabbi Neustadt is a polarizing figure.

We in the Detroit area are not well served by leadership that is divisive. You may have known Rabbi Drucker of Young Israel of Oak Park around whom a swirl of machlochet was a constant state of affairs. The shul suffered from this and it wasn’t until he left that the shul was able to get itself together to grow again.

How much more important is it that the Rabbinic chairman of the Council of Orthodox Rabbis of our entire community be someone whose personality is unifying rather than divisive. The last thing we need is a Vaad ha-ir that is known by its chumras and polarity. Already we have one of our major kosher caterers under hashgacha outside of the local Vaad. This caterer receives hashgacha from the star K.

From time to time Rabbis of the Conservative Movement have threatened to establish their own kasthrus authority. The hiring of Rabbi Neustadt portends a situation to which the Conservative Rabbis may no longer be willing to allow the Vaad to have a monopoly on kosher food supervision. This would be their opening and we would all suffer because major community agencies like Federation, the Senior housing agencies that supply meals and major community dinners might also come under haschgacha that we would find unacceptable.

Think also of the potential loss of revenue for the Vaad. Loss of income due to competing hashgacha agencies and reduced support from business interests. Supporters of the Vaad in the past who have Conservative affiliations have been the former Farmer Jack Markets, Paul Borman formerly head of Farmer Jack markets might choose the Conservative Kasthrus agency to support. I don't know Jim Hiller's affiliation but he too may withdraw some or all of his support.

All is not lost. Before these gloomy predictions have a chance to take place it would be wise for the Vaad to find a face saving way of withdrawing their offer ot employment to Rabbi Neustadt. As a member of the presidium of the Vaad you can exert the kind of influence now that will avert calamity. Please take these warnings seriously.

Update of Lincoln Kosher Meats

After speaking with Rabbi Krupnick at the Va'ad, I feel that it's important to update my previous post and add some new information about why Lincoln Kosher Meats lost its hechsher.
Rabbi Krupnick explained that of the mashgichim who were working in the store, Mr. Cohen was unsatisfied with three of them, and fired them without seeking permission from the Va'ad. Regardless of whether he had legitimate complaints about any particular mashgiach, he had no right to send one away without permission from the Va'ad. So, while from his perspective the Va'ad did not supply him with suitable mashgichim, the Va'ad did provide him mashgichim who he removed without Va'ad authorization.

Detroit Va'ad Removes Supervision from Lincoln Kosher Meats

Unlike any packaged products, unpackaged kosher meat requires an extremely high level of supervision, for the simple reason that it's simply impossible to distinguish one piece of meat (that's kosher) from another (that's not). In fact, normative Jewish law prohibits a person from eating any piece of meat from any source that was not under constant, ongoing supervision by a religious, Torah-observant Jew. Failure to maintain that constant supervision would render the meat בשר שנתעלם מן העין - (pronounced basar she'nisalem min ha'ayin) "meat that is out of constant view," and would make the meat seriously questionable for use in a kosher home. (For a more detailed explanation of this topic beyond the scope of this piece, click here for an article by the Star-K.)
This being the case, any non-Orthodox Jew who wished to sell meat would require a mashgiach temidi - a constant supervisory presence, which is the highest level of kashrus supervision. This was the understood and accepted requirement at Lincoln Kosher Meats, a store recently opened by Mr. Michael Cohen - and which now applies at Harvard Row in West Bloomfield as well. In fact, Mr. Cohen opened his store without having the keys to the lock on his own freezer -- a common practice in this type of case.
You might have noticed recently that the Va'ad has sent out several notices searching for people looking for work as mashgichim here in town. This is because it's very hard to find qualified people who are willing to work as mashgichim in butcher stores around town. Turnover is very high, and it's difficult to find workers who are both reliable and satisfactory to the store owner. This being the case, there were several instances where the mashgiach left the store before any alternative supervision could be established.
This week, the leadership of the Va'ad came to the conclusion that due to the small size of the store and the several instances where a lapse in hashgachah had occurred, it could not in good conscience continue to provide kashrus supervision to that establishment. It is important to emphasize that at no point did Mr. Cohen knowingly violate any kashrus policy. He has tried to comply with Va'ad rules and regulations. But the nature of the store and the fact that he himself is not Shomer Shabbos makes continued supervision technically unfeasable.
Personally, I'm saddened by this development. Our family had begun to purchase meat and poultry from the store, and Mr. Cohen's service and assistance was truly wonderful. He trimmed the meat, gave us certain cuts, and was happy to provide great service. On a number of occasions, he made recommendations that made our meals even better, based on the type of meat my wife wanted. In addition, I believe that it's never good to have a monopoly in any town. While Shloimie Luss provides a tremendous service to our community and the kashrus is impeccable, competition is always good for the community. Losing a promising new butcher stings.
At the same time, I am encouraged by this decisive action by the new leadership of the Va'ad. In the past, it could very well be argued that the Va'ad would have allowed a situation of questionable kashrus to continue indefinitely, arguing that "it was good for the city," or "well, we have to give it another chance and more time." But that flexibility led to a situation where people legitimately questioned the kashrus of each individual establishment, and whether the kashrus at that particular store is up to snuff. The Va'ad is determine to establish a single, unified standard of kashrus throughout our city -- one which every Jew can trust without question. While the removal of supervision from Lincoln Kosher Meats is certainly distressing, at least from the perspective of kashrus in our city, it's a move in the right direction.

The Equation for Communal Growth

Two interesting but seemingly unrelated articles appeared in the Rosh Hashanah Edition of Detroit's Jewish News. The first piece, describes the sale by Congregation Sha'arei Zedek of it's Laker Educational Center in West Bloomfield to Temple Shir Shalom. While seemingly un-noteworthy, a couple of interesting points caught my attention:

"The reason we are selling the building is that during the last few years, its usage was less than in previous years, primarily due to the fact that we reduced our educational requirements for attendance by one day," [Sharei Zedek Executive Director Janet] Pont said.

Interesting. But there's more.

Those plans are highlighted by what Shir Shalom Rabbi Dannel Schwartz calls "changing the paradigm of what synagogues do. We are ready to interface and create a bridge bringing our two congregations together," he said. "And that will give us four rabbis instead of two."
Calling it a significant initiative, he said, "The whole concept of the building is synergy. We will begin with an adult education program for both congregations next month. And it has been proposed that our religious school kids do programming together as well."
Enthused by the upcoming efforts of the two congregations, CSZ Rabbi Eric Yanoff maintains that although there will be combined programming between members of both synagogues, there is absolutely no talk of merging CSZ and Shir Shalom.

Of course there won't be a merger. After all, we're talking about two streams of Judiasm, with very different outlooks and perspectives on core Jewish values. Or are we? How else would they be able to share not only classroom space, but also rabbis and programming? In the end, what difference does it make if there's a technical merger or not, if the two congregations work together, establish programming together, and share rabbinic duties together? Where's the line between coexistence and cooperation, and merger?
Moreover, the entire tone of conciliation and accommodation in the piece raises serious questions for me -- not about Shir Tikveh -- I know what Judaism they stand for -- but about Shaarei Zedek. What do they actually teach in their supplementary religious school? How in the world can they consider sharing religious school programming with a Temple that preaches doctrine completely alien to Conservative Judaism's teachings?

In the same issue, JN publisher Arthur Horowitz wrote a piece suggesting a number of bold changes intended to bolster the Conservative Jewish community over the next five years. While a number of his ideas were indeed important and positive, one of them actually shocked me. He suggests the merger of Congregations Shaarei Zedek and Adat Shalom, creating a mega-congregation (the largest in the country), that would be able, due to its strength and size, to cater to the community better than the two congregations now can. I have a few simple questions:

1. What does this say about the nature of each of the congregations right now? It seems that in Horowitz's mind, shuls are just like department stores. They're really all the same, and people only care about the departments and services that they offer. That being the case, why not merge every single conservative synagogue in the region to form one mega-shul with a large number of different prayer services available, from the traditional style sanctuary service to a music-filled ruach service to a family service, a youth service, a babysitting room, and perhaps even a Yoga service. (I wish I were kidding about that one.) After all, wouldn't it be more cost-effective to merge secretarial services, maintenance, overhead -- and all the other costs associated with running a synagogue?
2. How does shrinking the number of synagogues actually strengthen the community? Doesn't diversity in numbers of institutions strengthen us, and not the opposite? Have the Conservative mergers of the past strengthened the Conservative community, or only further weakened it?
3. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it seems to me that Horowitz views the shul - and any religious institution from entirely the wrong perspective. A shul is not a business out to make money. It doesn't sell a product. It's a house of worship - a mikdash me'at -- a House of God. It must connect with people's hearts and minds, and become a spiritual home for its members and the community at large. Mega-shuls (and Churches) might offer services, but no one ever felt at home at Walmart or Costco, and without that sense of connection and spirituality, Judaism will never convey the warmth and authenticity that motivate people to grow closer to God. And let's not forget that the ultimate goal of a synagogue is not balancing the budget (not to say that's not important): it's connecting its membership with God.
   

While lowering the Hebrew school requirements (probably to cater to demands of parents unwilling to bring their children three days a week) might seem harmless, that concession ultimately leads to the closing of the synagogue - or its merging with another. (Any way you look at it, one shul in a merger closes). While this might seem harsh, it's actually rather obvious to me, because diluting what you stand for makes your members wonder what it is you actually provide, and why they should value membership at all.
We're watching the gradual dilution of Conservative Judaism both in our community, and across America. They lose adherents and members for the precise reason that they don't actually know what they want to, or should be. Therefore, in a bid to remain competitive for membership, they dilute their Judaism while at the same time reaching out to every possible constituency, and allow the dilution of their denomination.
This ambivalence will continue to destroy Conservative Judaism, until we're left with two major movements: Orthodox, and not Orthodox. And to be honest, that really does make me sad, because too many Jews, unwilling to make the leap to an Orthodox synagogue, will find themselves on the slippery reform slope to assimilation and intermarriage.
While the Orthodox community might consider itself unconcerned with these matters (and many refuse to even read the Jewish News anymore), if we're concerned with the future of the Jewish people, it really is our problem. Kiruv cannot possibly reach enough people. Conservative Judaism used to play a critical role for the Jewish people, offering those unable or willing to commit to a life of frumkeit an option that at least resembled traditional Jewish practice. That, it seems, is slowly melting away, and that loss is one we must mourn.
What can be done? How can Conservative Judaism grow and thrive in Detroit?

1. Build smaller shuls. We need small synagogues -- or smaller branches -- in more places. From what I hear, Shaarei Zedek's branch in West Bloomfield is doing just fine. It has a heimish atmosphere, a nice chevra, and a sense of community. Why not build (or create) another branch in Huntington Woods, and yet another in Berkeley, and another in Commerce Township, each with its own dedicated rabbi, and each its own feel, and each its own sense of family? Better yet, who needs branches of a larger shul? Smaller is better, more intimate, and less costly. Moreover, smaller shuls demand more member involvement and less reliance on professional staff. My shul runs hundreds of classes throughout the year and tens of programs for youth, families and adults. How do we do it? People volunteer because they realize that if they don't get involved and active, no one else will. Sure, we could use more help, and there's never enough volunteers, but there's no feeling like walking into a kiddush prepared not by a caterer, but by the shul membership. And there's no greater feeling than attending a program organized, arranged and run by shul members. You'll never have that feeling in a mega-shul.
   
2. Get rid of Hebrew Schools entirely. They don't work. I have never met a person who went to Hebrew school who didn't hate it. If Conservative Judaism is to survive, it will have to teach its members that Jewish Day School is not an option -- it's a necessity. And, as peer pressure grows to send children to Hillel, more families will do just that, and integrate the religiosity of the school into family life. Fortunately, that simple move will save the synagogues their greatest expense, allowing them to remain small and financially viable.
3. Get serious about halachah. To quote "E-Loan", people are smart. They get authenticity. And sometimes that means saying "no" -- both to homosexuality (which traditional Jews understand the Torah prohibits - despite anyone's good intentions), and especially driving to shul on Shabbos, which the former chancellor of JTS acknowledged was a cardinal error, and probably the beginning of the decline of the movement. These small shuls must start insisting that their members walk to shul. They must insist on kashrut, both in shul and at home, and also at the parties they attend and the Bnei Mitzvah they celebrate. The must talk about mitzvot not as good deeds, but as commandments. As they must acknowledge that in the Torah God gives two types of commandments: positive commandments, and negative ones, all equally binding. Without the word "no" halachah is meaningless, and everyone, including laypeople, intuitively know it.

We in the Orthodox community must be ready to reach out to traditional families, welcoming them into our homes and our shul, giving them the sense of authentic Judaism and warmth that they've been missing. It sounds simple -- but it's actually quite difficult to maintain our own sense of identity and integrity while still remaining open to newcomers unfamiliar with Orthodox practice and ritual. I'm not just talking about kiruv, which we already do. I'm speaking of changing the closed-door mentality so prevalent in Orthodox life, and pervasive in our homes, shuls and even schools. We've started moving in that direction, but to make a significant and meaningful difference, we will have to accelerate what will undoubtedly be a painful and difficult process.
As you can see, I'm pretty passionate about this issue, because I feel it's so critical for the Jewish community. Will the Conservative congregations take my advice? I doubt it.
But then don't be surprised if, one day soon we do see a merger between Adat Shalom and Shaarei Zedek, and then not long after that, another merger between "Adat Zedek" (or "Shaarei Shalom"?) and Shir Tikveh. And then there won't be anything left of Detroit -- or America's -- Conservative Community.

A Quiet Kashrus Resolution

Many of you might remember that a few months ago, the JCC in West Bloomfield considered allowing non-kosher catering at the JCC, thereby threatening the kashrus status of Milk and Honey, the only upscale kosher restaurant in Detroit. If you don't remember, check the post here. At the same time, the restaurant is still operating, remains kosher, and seems to be running as it always had. Did the issue die a quiet death? Hardly. Through the diligent efforts of a number of members of our community, the JCC decided to maintain its kashrus policy, thereby ending the crisis.
First and foremost, numerous members of the Jewish community communicated with the JCC leadership -- both lay and professional -- regarding the importance of maintaining Milk and Honey as a kosher restaurant, and emphasizing the value that the restaurant brings to the JCC as an institution. Kudos for that.
Secondly, the rabbinic leadership on the Vaad maintained a unified stance against the possibility of having non-kosher catering in the JCC and allowing Milk and Honey to remain a kosher restaurant. Had the JCC board heard different messages from different members of the Vaad, they would have easily been able to argue that there was room to allow non-Kosher catering and still maintain kashrus on site. This was an important lesson about just how much we can achieve when we present a unified front to the community.
Third, many members of the non-Orthodox community came forward, especially those with a stake in the Jewish Academy, whose new building will be the second and third floors of the main JCC building. Having a non-kosher restaurant in the same building as the Jewish Academy would not have been a tenable situation.
Fourth -- and probably most significantly -- the leadership in Federation -- both lay and especially professional, communicated the impact that this decision would have on the entire community to the JCC Board, and strongly pushed for the maintaining of the status quo, allowing Milk and Honey to remain kosher. Moreover, the Jewish Federation has encouraged the JCC to apply for funding to supplement some of the financial hit that it takes in lost revenue because it maintains a kosher-only policy. If you read that and didn't think that's a big deal, think again. It's important to emphasize that in many other communities around the country, federations are the organizations pushing against traditional values like Kashrus. Here, we see precisely the opposite - where our federation is pushing for the values and needs of the traditional community, even when it's going to cost some money. Again, that's a testament to the unique sensitivity of our federation's leadership, and also to the Orthodox community's continued involvement with federation activities.
Finally, we must also thank the members of the JCC Board. While I disagree with their initial desire to allow non-kosher catering at Handleman Hall, I understand the financial realities and pressures that they face. In the end, they too compromised for the sake of the community's well-being, and shouldered a greater financial burden in the process.
I guess one of the great lessons from this episode is the importance of our involvement in the broader community. If we close ourselves off from the larger community, then when we have needs and concerns, we have no one to turn to. On the other hand, experience shows us that when we engage with Jews from across the religious spectrum on a host of issues, they open themselves to the needs of our community as well.

Milk and Honey and the JCC

Thankfully, and due to some very hard work on behalf of numerous individuals, we - inside the Orthodox community -- enjoy a very productive and beneficial relationship with the broader Jewish community. This has allowed us to partner in a number of different important communal areas of concern, from Jewish education, to support for Israel, to communal needs. It is in that spirit that I'm writing about a recent development in the hope that we can again positively communicate with the members of the larger community, and solve a looming communal problem.

As we all know, the JCC in West Bloomfield houses the Milk and Honey Restaurant, the only upscale kosher dining establishment in Southeastern Michigan. Milk and Honey, run by Matt Prentice, is cholov yisroel with a mashgiach temidi, and in a recent review by an outside expert, received an excellent review for its kashrus -- a source of great pride for Mr. Prentice. It is an important resource for members of the observant community who need a venue for business meetings, celebrations, or just a nice night out.

As you might guess, Milk and Honey alone would at best struggle for financial viability. Without Friday nights and Saturdays, let alone holidays, a restaurant cannot cover its own expenses. Yet, in an agreement with the JCC, Matt opened Milk and Honey five years ago and also became the exclusive kosher caterer at the JCC and Handleman Hall. He agreed to pay minimum rents assuming that with the beauty of the room and his catering expertise, he would easily be able to cover those minimums and the expense of the restaurant. Unfortunately, the events never materialized at the JCC. The income never came, and Matt was forced to pay out of his own pocket to cover the minimum rent agreements.

When his contract came up for renewal, Matt could no longer guarantee the JCC a minimum income for Handelman Hall. The business just wasn't sufficient to make that kind of commitment. But, the JCC needed that revenue in order to cover their budget. So, the JCC decided that any private party need not be kosher at the JCC. At the same time, it reaffirmed that any JCC event would still be strictly kosher. With this new policy in place, in negotiations with Matt Prentice, the JCC insisted that in order to renew his contract, he would relinquish his exclusivity and Handleman Hall, meaning that any caterer, kosher or not, could now service the JCC.

Although Matt initially agreed to these stipulations, he now feels that allowing other caterers to offer non-kosher catering in Handleman Hall puts him at an unfair disadvantage. If others can bring in treif food, they why can't he? In fact, the JCC would have no problem with Matt catering treif parties at the JCC. But it does present major kashrus issues:

1. First and foremost, experience tells us that to allow a caterer to have kosher and non-kosher service at the same venue is a recipe for disaster. Parties are the most difficult events to monitor and plan for -- there are too many people, factors and possibilities that can come up, and must be dealt with quickly. Having non-kosher parties in the same location as the kosher parties would create a situation where mistakes would happen, no matter how iron-clad the previously put in place precautions.
   
2. If Matt Prentice were to cater both kosher and non-kosher affairs at the JCC, that would create a sense of confusion for patrons. How would anyone really know whether the affair was kosher or treif? Would they have to ask? Would it have to be on the invitation? Who would agree to advertise: "this Bar Mitzvah is a non-kosher event"?

For this reason, if Matt Prentice began catering treif affairs at the JCC, he would no longer be able to cater kosher affairs as well. And if he couldn't have the kosher catering business there, it would not make sense business-wise for him to keep Milk and Honey kosher either.

So we seem to have a conundrum:

• The kosher-eating community needs and wants Milk and Honey to continue to operate, and...
• The JCC needs more revenue from Handelman Hall and feels that the only way to increase revenue is by offering treif parties, but...
• The Vaad cannot allow a caterer -- even with a great track record -- to offer kosher and non-kosher catering at the same location, and...
• Matt needs to cover his costs and cannot compete with other non-kosher caterers at the JCC.

That's where we come in:

We would like to encourage you to communicate with the JCC about this issue. Please note that we don't think that we should immediately begin to complain: there are valid concerns from each party. At the same time, with good communication, perhaps we can prevail upon the JCC to reconsider its decision to allow non-kosher parties at the JCC.

• First and foremost, have they done any serious studies to assess whether allowing treif will significantly increase revenues? It's one thing to say empirically that we know people who would take the room, but does that really bear out to be true? Currently, Matt is able to cater kosher parties on Shabbos, although Shabbos clearly does place restrictions on what he can and cannot offer. Why aren't people hiring Matt Prentice to do their parties now, and how would allowing non-kosher food change that?
• Secondly, assuming that the decision to allow treif catering in the JCC would result in the loss of Milk and Honey as a kosher restaurant, is that a trade that the JCC would be willing to make for the expected income? The Board of Directors, when it made this decision, was not aware of these ramifications. Now, perhaps they could reconsider this decision in light of these new facts. The Jewish community puts a great deal of additional revenue into the JCC to preserve its viability: while the cost of keeping kosher might be great, the community needs to decide whether that's a cost that it's willing to bear. That's a decision that should not be placed solely on the back of the JCC, but on the community at large.
  

It's important to communicate to the leadership of the JCC and to our friends in the community, in a positive manner, the value that the Orthodox and kosher community places in Milk and Honey. It brings people into the building, and creates important opportunities for interaction between different facets of the community. It creates a wonderful space for interaction, and its a great restaurant.

We will all need to work together to solve this issue and come to a resolution that's viable for everyone involved. We know that with the right attitude, that's something that we've accomplished before, and can again achieve with this issue as well.

Rabbi Yechiel Morris, Young Israel of Southfield
Rabbi Reuven Spolter, Young Israel of Oak Park